Doom and Gloom

For the poor, a warming planet is beginning to look apocalyptic with the droughts, floods, fires, and pestilence that accompany climate change. 

Achieving the goals of the 2015 Paris Agreement that is intended to limit the scope of global warming is hard to imagine. All indications are that we are seeing increases in average temperatures, more frequent and more intense severe weather events, changing weather patterns and a sea-level rise around the globe. This threatens each and every single one of us but many are particularly vulnerable. The situation is even worse than you think.  Much of the planet will likely become inhospitable and close to uninhabitable. There are media stories each day that show the extent and effect of global warming. The harm and destruction are horrifying. Experts give us only slim odds of achieving the Paris two degree goal, the threshold of ecological catastrophe. 

 The conclusion to make is that no plausible capitalist programme of emissions reductions can prevent environmental disaster.  For every degree of warming, yields decline by 10 percent. Which means that if the planet is five degrees warmer at the end of the century, we may have as many as 50 percent more people to feed and 50 percent less grain to give them.  By 2080, without dramatic reductions in emissions, southern Europe will be in a permanent extreme drought, much worse than the American dust bowl ever was. As for the American prairies, it would be even worse than in the 1930s. In fact, worse than any droughts over the last thousand years  The same will be true in much of the Middle East, Australia, Africa, and South America; as well as the breadbasket regions of China. None of these places, which today supply much of the world’s food, will be reliable sources of any. 

Theoretically, of course, a warmer climate will make it easier to grow crops in what is now presently tundra but you can’t easily move arable farming north and fertility is limited by the quality of the soil. It takes many centuries for the planet to produce fruitful fields.

Taken from here

Compassion? As A Motivation?

On June 26, the new Progressive Conservative leader, Andrew Scheer, told the press what he would do if elected. When asked about winning over voters who distrust conservative policies, he said, "The conservative government had an excellent record on infrastructure that did improve the quality of life for people in Toronto and I want to continue that."

Exactly what they did, he neglected to say. On what he learned during the last federal election campaign, he had this to say, "The No.1 lesson I learned is that conservatives have to find a way to articulate a positive message and explain how it's conservative policies that improve the quality of life for all Canadians;" which is very specific.

With amazing gall, Scheer added, "It's explaining the why and showing Canadians that conservatives are motivated by compassion, they're motivated by a desire for a better quality of life."

It's doubtful any elector anywhere would believe any politician is motivated by compassion, especially if it got in the way of that other motive, which I think is called the profit motive.

There it is folks; a typical political speech couched in generalities but saying nothing specifically. Anyone who wants Scheer and his kind elected shouldn't expect much so they won't be disappointed. 

John and Steve.

This is what capitalism really is

 “The difference between the white slave, and the black slave, is this: the latter belongs to ONE slave-holder, and the former belongs to ALL the slave-holders, collectively. The white slave has taken from his, by indirection, what the black slave had taken from him, directly, and without ceremony. Both are plundered, and by the same plunderers.”  Frederick Douglas, former slave, 1855

Capitalism’s problems are often isolated as single issues to obscure the flaws of the entire system. Capitalism is an economic system where, under pressure from the market, profits are accumulated as further capital, i.e. as money invested in production with a view to making further profits. This is not a matter of the individual choice of those in control of capitalist production – it’s not due to their personal greed or inhumanity – it’s something forced on them by the operation of the system. And which operates irrespective of whether a particular economic unit is the property of an individual, a limited company, the state or even of a workers’ cooperative. Capitalism breeds inequality. Capitalism is wage slavery. Capitalist exploitation occurs as a result of the normal operation of market forces. 

Let’s clarify what is meant by markets. It was with the emergence of the capitalist system that society lost its direct control of its productive resources. In previous societies, it was often the case that production was at near maximum capacity given the technology and resources available and this determined what could be distributed. In times of good harvests, the whole community could benefit in some shape or form. But with the development of the capitalist system, this was eroded as what is produced depends crucially on what can be sold. This means that distribution through sale in the markets determines production and this is always less than what could be produced.

Capitalism is a market economy, but not a simple market economy. A key difference, of course, is that under capitalism production is not carried out by self-employed producers but wage and salary workers employed by business enterprises. In other words, by profits, we mean income that flows to the owner of a workplace or land who hires others to do the work. In other words, under capitalism, the producers have become separated from the means of production. This makes all the difference.

There is no hope under Capitalism

Under capitalism, production is geared to profits and therefore does not, in general, take place unless the goods can be marketed profitably. Thus capitalism is not geared to produce to satisfy the reasonable needs of the majority of the population. Nevertheless, it has developed the means of production, including those in the fields of food and energy, to the extent that the creation of an abundance of wealth is now technically possible. In a socialist society, the world will function as one productive unit. With the probability of people living in smaller communities with modern energy-efficient communications reducing transport requirements, we may well see these communities self-sufficient in energy, although some provision for emergencies will be required. The environmentally benign, renewable methods are in many ways better suited to smaller scale operations, as shown to a certain extent by the instances where they are making headway at present. 

 Socialism has but small use for just simple hatred for capitalism. Whilst we depict the cruelties of capitalism in order to rouse the indignation and fix the attention of our fellows, we should be worse than fools to build a movement on mere indignation. In our perusal of history, in our observation of the world around us, there is always enough to keep our indignation alive, but we do not peruse history or look at our world for that. We study these things that we may understand how our society has come to be as it is, and how it may be made to serve human happiness more perfectly. We may perceive that malice, ignorance or sheer perversity may have added to human misery or may have diverted the results of communal effort into private channels, but indignation will not remedy it. Neither will action based upon mere hatred of the human agents involved. Socialism has little use for hatred. We prefer to concentrate on knowledge, for with knowledge comes understanding, and from understanding proceeds intelligent, definite action. This is one great difference between the Socialist Party and the Labour Party. The latter—and this is not a mere jibe—specialises in sob-stuff. It's Press and its political representatives are absorbed in the appeal to sentiment. They appeal constantly for your tears for the orphan, the underfed, the widow, the aged, the out-of-work, the casual labourer, the poorly housed, the "ex-Service man," and dozens of other categories of poverty. And being a mere sentimental appeal, and further, being without the correct knowledge and understanding, they invite you to get the Government to give a pension to this one, increase the pension to that one, feed the children of the other one, and so on. They assure you that this kind of thing is "practical Socialism," and implore you to give them the keys of power so that they may dispense the appropriate plaster for each social sore. The appeal is purely sentimental; a fatal basis upon which to build an effective party. People may respond more quickly to an appeal to their feelings, rather than their reason, but, action based upon reason will go further, make fewer mistakes and get there, long before sentimentalism has exhausted all the possibilities of error. In all of our years of existence we have consistently demonstrated the utter futility of the "something now" policy and the dangerous absurdity of the mere appeal to righteous indignation. Socialism is a practical, scientific proposition, to be applied to existing society. It will not be brought” into operation by angry men, for anger is a bad counselor.

The task of making the great mass of Labour Party voter into socialists remains. Nationalisation, municipalisation, and public ownership still appear too much in the mind’s eye of the average worker as methods whereby he will immediately advance wages and working conditions. We must dispel such delusions. Just as we now must disillusion fellow workers of their misplaced faith in cooperatives and universal basic incomes schemes as solutions to their poverty.

IT'S ALL ABOARD THE HS2! (weekly poem)

IT'S ALL ABOARD THE HS2!

The Government hopes that spending £42.6bn* on a High Speed

train service will rejuvenate the economy—despite others doubts.

* Does not include £7bn for the rolling stock. See note (3) below.

It's all aboard the HS2,

To join the Fast Buck scrum;

And cut some twenty minutes off,

The journey north to Brum.

Then on to Manchester and Leeds,

And Sheffield via Crewe;

Let's hope that wheelchair users find,

A clean and working loo!

The NAO says it's a sham, (1)

The PAC a farce; (2)

To simply help fat businessman,

Relax in the First Class.

The Government's railroading spin,

Is trying hard to kid;

The lot of us that it should spend,

Some Forty Billion quid.

Even the private IEA, (3)

Aren't on the project's side;

And recognise that vanity,

Drives this High Speed Train ride.

The IOD's boss says it's just, (4)

A “Folly,” nothing less;

Most of his members think the scheme's,

An economic mess.

Not so the Transport Industry,

Who stand to make a buck;

From lobbying a government,

That trusts in 'Business luck'.

The Shires of Middle England feel,

They soon will be assailed;

Unless the cord is firmly pulled,

And the whole plan derailed!

(1) National Audit Office.

(2) Public Accounts Committee.

(3) Institute of Economic Affairs estimate final costs of £80bn.

(4) Institute of Directors.

© Richard Layton

Socialist Standard No. 1356 August 2017

• Grenfell Tower
• Editorial: Deal or No Deal?
• Pathfinders: Global Warning Fatigue
• Child Poverty: Not Just Being Poor
• Russia 1917: As We Saw It
• Cooking the Books: Capitalism and Property
• Greasy Pole: Working For Jeremy
• Material World: The Mad Cow Disease of India
• Blame the System
• What Labour Governments End Up Doing: A Reminder
• Greece: the Road to Bailoutistan
• Mosul: the Horrors of War
• Whose Party Is It?
• Flaming Forests
• Cooking the Books: Boo to Capitalism
• Proper Gander: Home Truths
• Book Reviews: 'Utopia for Realists', & 'A Place of Refuge - An Experiment in Communal Living'
• Exhibition Review: '1917 - Romanovs and Revolution'
• 50 Years Ago: Zilliacus
• O Jeremy Corbyn
• Rear View

The new ideal

The viability of our planet support humanity is now being questioned.

The Socialist Party claims that the majority of the working class are capable of understanding socialism. This being so we are often asked the question, why then, are there not many more socialists? At present, the vast majority of workers mistakenly can only see the solution to their problems in reforming capitalism in one way or another. Capitalism itself is not questioned, it is only the patching up of its effects that is attempted. What is seen and heard in the mass media is the misuse of the word Socialism and distortions of Marx’s ideas. This means that we are called upon to waste a lot of time in explaining what socialism is not, that socialism does not yet exist anywhere. What is important about the mass media is not so much that they create attitudes and values but that they continue to reinforce existing ones. Socialist ideas are not propagated in a vacuum but within capitalist society, meeting all the obstacles and prejudice of capitalist ideology. A great deal of expense and time is spent perpetuating attitudes which maintain the capitalist system. Marx wrote, and it still applies today, that “The prevailing ideas in society are the ideas of the ruling class.”

It is also a fact that capitalism will not let workers rest content, it is forever throwing problems in their way. Old problems such as poverty and relatively new ones such as pollution, drug addiction, increasing mental illness and many others. All the time capitalism with some fresh horror demands that we sit up and take notice. The problems, tragedies, and frustrations of capitalism are not easily escaped. To those who say “Yes, socialism is a good idea, but you will never get the majority of people to understand it,” we ask: If you can understand Socialism, why not then the majority of people? For those who think us idealists and say “Yes it sounds like a very fine ideal.” We reply that socialism is not an ideal. It is based on the sound facts of the way human society evolves, and the way capitalism works. We are not asking for a change of heart — we are asking for the conversion of the means of production from private or state ownership to common ownership. The material conditions for socialism have long been in existence. All that is needed is for the majority of the working class to realise their common interest in abolishing capitalism. That mighty force would then have arisen, the class-conscious working class with one objective — the establishment of socialism. With this end in view, and armed with socialist knowledge, the working class will fulfill their role. This great and final act as members of the working class will free them from the chains of the wage-labour and capital relationship which now holds them in its grip. Then they will emerge as men and women in a classless society, securely resting on the sound basis of the common ownership of the means of production. The wars, the rat-race, the poverty and all the other evils which arise from property society would then have gone from the scene of a truly human society. Men, women, and children would then be free to develop their potential and their relations with each other as human beings. This is not an ideal but a practical and material demand that is in line with the interests of workers throughout the world. 

Marx’s participation in the FirstInternationall was a resumption of the same strategy derived, through Engels, from the Chartist experience of the early 1840s which had motivated his earlier collaboration with Ernest Jones. Because he believed that out of the economic organisations of the working class would eventually evolve a conscious political movement for socialism, he was not too concerned about the political ideas of the trade union leaders he had agreed to work with. The development of the working class movement itself would, Marx believed somewhat over-optimistically, sooner or later put this right. The important thing at this stage for Marx was to set this movement in motion, to encourage independent working class trade union and political activity. Marx’s participation in the British trade union movement was not confined to theorising. The First International was concerned with trade union matters and has been accurately described as being during this period “an international trade union liaison committee". When a strike occurred in Britain and the employer imported blackleg labour from the Continent, the IWMA intervened, often successfully, with leaflets and speakers in the appropriate language, to persuade the continental workers not to break the strike. Similarly, when a strike occurred in Britain or on the Continent, the IWMA publicised it and raised funds from workers and trade unions in other countries to help the strikers and their families. Marx, as a member of the General Council, played his part in such activities, drafting for instance a leaflet addressed to German tailors concerning a strike.

The Socialist Party has no time for compromise; we stand entirely and singly for the establishment of a new social order. This order can be brought into being only through a social revolution which must be the outcome of a democratic act by the world working class. And the essential of that act is that it will he the work of politically aware socialists — of people throughout the world who understand that capitalism cannot operate in their interests and who have therefore resolved to sweep it away and replace it with socialism. But conscious political action cannot result from confusion and deceit. A party which aims, as the SPGB aims, at the development and expansion of political awareness cannot achieve its object by spreading confusion and by wavering in its principles. Such a party must be based on its object of socialism; nothing else will do and nothing else will therefore be considered. From this basis the events of capitalism, and the actions of the parties which support capitalism, can be analysed and exposed. Socialism will be a society based on the communal ownership.  It will be a democratically controlled society. Its wealth will be turned out to meet human needs and will therefore be freely available to everyone. It will be a system without classes and therefore without class conflict. Socialism's harmony of interests will remove war and poverty from human experience. That will be a very different social order from that which dominates us today.

THE SOCIALIST OPTION

We envisage socialism as being established globally and almost simultaneously. As far back as 1847 Engels wrote:

“Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?

 No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others.

Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of the civilized countries to such an extent that, in all of them, bourgeoisie and proletariat have become the decisive classes, and the struggle between them the great struggle of the day. It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries – that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and Germany.

It will develop in each of these countries more or less rapidly, according as one country or the other has a more developed industry, greater wealth, a more significant mass of productive forces. Hence, it will go slowest and will meet most obstacles in Germany, most rapidly and with the fewest difficulties in England. It will have a powerful impact on the other countries of the world, and will radically alter the course of development which they have followed up to now, while greatly stepping up its pace.

It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range.”

Ideas are a social phenomena and cross borders. How music genres arise and then travel the globe, or how fashions are adopted across cultures?

Just as capitalism is a world system of society, so too must socialism be. There never has been, and never can be, socialism in just one country. Socialism will be one world-wide community without national boundaries, a united humanity. It would also share a world administration. This is the socialist alternative to the way that capitalism divides the planet into rival states and sets people against each other. But this does not rule out local democracy. A world administration will not mean the power of central control over local democracy. In fact, a democratic system of decision-making would require that the basic unit of social organisation would be the local community. However, the nature of some of the problems we face and the many goods and services presently produced, such as raw materials, energy sources, agricultural products, world transport and communications, need production and distribution to be organised at a world level. One of the great technological developments under capitalism has been communications and the rapid processing and distribution of information. This will alter our awareness of being in the world and the boundaries between what is local and distant are shifted or become blurred. So, as well as the face-to-face contacts of our daily lives at home and at work with friends, neighbours and relatives, and as well as our part in local affairs, at the same time we would be involved with all other people in world issues and events of every kind.

The motivation for this new world comes from the global problems thrown up by capitalism. There are no parochial solutions to world problems like world poverty, hunger and disease. Ecological problems make a nonsense of the efforts of national governments. War and the continuing threat of nuclear war affect us all. The problem of uneven development means that many producers in the Third World suffer starvation, disease, and absolute poverty. All of these problems of capitalism can only be solved within the framework of a socialist world.

Socialism will be a co-operative world wide system. National frontiers and governments and armed forces will disappear. Groups of people may well preserve their languages and customs but this will have nothing to do with claiming territorial rights or military dominances over pieces of the world surface. To move forward, the dispossessed majority across the world must now look beyond the artificial barriers of nation-states and regional blocs, to perceive a common identity and purpose.

Because political power in capitalism is organised on a territorial basis each socialist party has the task of seeking democratically to gain political power in the country where it operates. This, however, is merely an organisational convenience; there is only one socialist movement, of which the separate socialist organisations are constituent parts. When the socialist movement grows larger its activities will be fully co-ordinated through its world-wide organisation. It is suggested that socialist ideas might develop unevenly across the world, and that socialists of only a part of the world were in a position to get political control. This relates to the possibility that the socialist movement could be larger in one country than in another and at the stage of being able to gain control of the machinery of government before the socialist movements elsewhere were as far advanced. The decision about the action to be taken would be one for the whole of the socialist movement in the light of all the circumstances at the time. It would certainly be a folly, however, to base a programme of political action on the assumption that socialist ideas will develop unevenly and that we must therefore be prepared to establish "socialism" in one country or even a group of countries like the European Union. For a start, it is an unreasonable assumption that socialist ideas will develop unevenly. Given the world-wide nature of capitalism and its social relationships, the vast majority of people live under basically similar conditions, and because of the world-wide system of communications and media, there is no reason for socialist ideas to be restricted to one part of the world. Any attempt to establish "socialism" in one country would be bound to fail owing to the pressures exerted by the world market on that country's means of production. Those who become socialists will realise this and also the importance of uniting with workers in all countries. The socialist idea is not one that could spread unevenly. Thus the socialist parties will be in a position to gain political control in the industrially advanced countries within a short period of each other. (It is conceivable that in some less developed countries, where the working class is weak in numbers, the privileged rulers may be able to retain their class position for a little longer. But as soon as the workers had won in the advanced countries they would give all the help needed elsewhere. The less developed countries might present socialism with problems, but they do not constitute a barrier to the immediate establishment of socialism as a world system.)

"...By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others...It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries – that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and Germany.... It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range...The nationalities of the peoples associating themselves in accordance with the principle of community will be compelled to mingle with each other as a result of this association and thereby to dissolve themselves, just as the various estate and class distinctions must disappear through the abolition of their basis, private property." Engels. 

There is but one world and we exist as one people in need of each other and with the same basic needs. There is far more that unites us than can ever divide us along cultural, nationalistic or religious lines. Together we can create a civilisation worth living in, but before that happens we need the conscious cooperation of ordinary people across the world, united in one common cause—to create a world in which each person has free access to the benefits of civilisation, a world without borders or frontiers, social classes or leaders and a world in which production is at last freed from the artificial constraints of profit and used for the good of humanity—socialism. There is in reality only one world. It is high time we reclaimed it.

Socialism

The goal of social ownership and democratic control of production and distribution has to be articulated directly.To seek political improvements to the capitalist system is a distraction from what needs to be done. When we insist that the working class has to be educated before it can make progress, some people on the left who have good intentions say that they "don't want to wait that long." But this isn't an option. A "revolution" carried out by people who are angry at the injustices of the old social system, but unclear about what to replace it with, or not sufficiently dedicated to the democratic structure of the new system, is the road to a new dictatorship. The working class who will create a socialist society must also know how to operate it. They need to understand what the basic rules of the game are, so to speak. There needs to be a widespread consensus about what to expect of people if a socialist society is to properly function. "Anti-capitalism" in itself can never succeed in overthrowing capitalism. To bring capitalism to an an end we need to have a viable alternative to put in its place. And this is an alternative that we need to be conscious and desirous of before it can ever be put in place. A class imbued with socialist consciousness will be far more militant and empowered than any amount of mere "anti-capitalism". Socialist consciousness is class consciousness in its most developed sense. The idea that such an alternative could somehow materialise out of thin air without a majority of workers actually wanting it or knowing about it is simply not realistic. Such an alternative can function if people know what it entails. In itself, engaging in workplace struggles within capitalism - important though this is - doesn't take us much forward since capitalism can only ever be run in the interest of capital. The capitalist system isn't a failure due to bad leaders or bad policies, but because of the kind of system that it is.

Socialism, in other words, meant a money-free wage-free state-free cooperative commonwealth. This was the general understanding of what socialism meant. Marx didn't talk about a "transitional society". he talked about the lower phase of communism. It was still communism...that is, a classless society. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”

Who decides what your ability or need is? It would take some sort of position of power to determine who is in need and who has the ability. Power naturally corrupts and tends to find ways to increase and consolidate power. a fter time, you are left with those who have consolidated power to abuse, and those who don't. Therefore who decides? The answer, you do! This is the whole point of the communist slogan "from each according to ability to each according to need". The autonomy of the individual is maximised and as a result, we all benefit. As the Communist Manifesto put it:

"In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all"

Specifically a communist (aka socialist) society - or at least what Marx called the "higher stage" of communism - exhibits two key features:

1) Free access to goods and services - no buying and selling. No barter. You simply go to the distribution point and take what you require according to your self determined needs. This depends on there being a relatively advanced technological infrastructure to produce enough to satisfy our basic needs. Such a possibility already exists. Capitalism, however, increasingly thwarts this potential. In fact, most of the work we do today in the formal sector will be completely unnecessary in a communist society - it serves only to prop up capitalism. What possible use would there be for a banking system under communism, for example? We could effectively more than double the quantities of resources and human labour power available for socially useful production by scrapping capitalism. Socialism will destroy the need for greed and conspicuous consumption

2) Volunteer labour. Your contribution to society is completely voluntary. There is no wage labour or other forms of co-erced labour. You can do as little or as much work as you choose. And you can do as many different kinds of jobs as you want, too. The presumption is that people would freely choose to work under socialism for all sorts of reasons:

- the conditions under which we work will be radically different, without an employing class dictating terms work will become fulfilling and pleasant
- we need to work, to express ourselves creatively
- with free access to goods, conspicuous consumption will be rendered meaningless as a way of gaining respect and social esteem. Which leaves only what we give to society as a way of gaining the respect of our peers. This should not be underestimated; it is one of the most important motivational drives in human beings as numerous studies in industrial psychology have confimed
- Socialism depends on people recognising our mutual interdependence. There is, in other words, a sense of moral obligation that goes with the territory
- Socialism will permit a far greater degree of technological adaptation without the constraints of the profit system. Intrinsically backbreaking or unpleasant work can be automated. Conversely, some work may be deliberately made more labour intensive and craft based.
- Even under capitalism today most work is unpaid or unremunerated - the household economy, the volunteer sector and so on. So it is not as if this is something we are unaccustomed to. Volunteers moreover tend to be the most highly motivated as studies have confirmed; they don't require so called external incentives
- We will get rid of an awful lot of crappy and pointless jobs that serve as a disincentive to work
- since we would be free to do any job we chose to what this means in effect is that for any particular job there would be a massive back-up supply of labour to cover it consisting of most people in society. In capitalism, this cannot happen since labour mobility is severely restricted since if you have a job you cannot just choose to abandon it for the sake of another more urgent job from the standpoint of society

With these two core characteristics of a socialist society - free access to goods and services plus volunteer labour - there can be no political leverage that anyone or any group could exercise over anyone else. The material basis of class power would have completely dissolved. What we would be left with is simply human beings being free to express their fundamentally social and cooperative nature

Free access socialism is not going to be brought to the point of collapse by the fact that we cannot all have a Porshe or Ferrari parked outside our front door. Imagine what it could be like without a boss class on our backs? Imagine what our workplaces could become without the cost cutting constraints of capitalism and have the freedom to decide on these matters ourselves. Imagine not being tied down to one single kind of job all the time but being given the opportunity to experiment with different jobs, to travel abroad to work in new places, to taste new experiences. Imagine a money-free, prices-free communist world in which most of the occupations that we do today - from bankers to pay departments to arms producers to sales-people - will simply disappear at a stroke releasing vast amounts of resources and, yes, human labour power as well for socially useful production. Kropotkin was quite correct on that. We dont need the whip-lash of the wages system to compel us to work. The mere fact that we recognise our mutual interdependence in a society in which we will fully realise our social nature will suffice to impose upon us a sense of moral obligation to contribute to the common good of our own free will. Indeed we already, to some extent, do this today even under capitalism, given that fully half of all the work that we do today is completely unremunerated. How much more conducive will a communist moral economy be to the performance of unremunerated work is not hard to see.

Brexit, Hard or Soft?

‘Soft Brexit’ – a scenario where the UK joins a free trade area with the EU, such as the European Free Trade Association (EFTA). While tariffs would remain at zero, non-tariff barriers (including customs checks, border controls, differences in product market regulations and legal barriers) would increase the costs of trade.
 ‘Hard Brexit’ – a scenario where the UK and the EU do not immediately form a free trade area and the default situation is to trade under World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules. This would result in an increase in tariffs and non-tariff barriers that would be substantially larger than under soft Brexit.

New research examining for the first time the potential impact of Brexit on cities and towns has found Aberdeen could be the hardest hit by higher trade costs with the European Union.

Economic output as measured by Gross Value Added (GVA) was predicted to decline by a 3.7% forecast decrease in GVA in the case of a hard Brexit, and 2.1% in a “soft” scenario. under a hard Brexit.

Edinburgh was predicted to incur a 2.7% loss in the event of hard Brexit and 1.4% if it is a soft Brexit.

Glasgow, it would be 2.4% and 1.3% respectively.

Dundee, 2.1% and 1.2%.

http://www.centreforcities.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/17-07-26-Brexit-trade-and-the-economic-impacts-on-UK-cities.pdf

An introduction to world socialism

Wage Slavery Abolitionists

The Socialist Party of Great Britain was formed to work for socialism. We have carried on the hard struggle to build up a party of socialists, understanding and ready to work for Socialism. Our aim is to obtain for the whole community complete ownership and control of the means of transport, the means of manufacture, the mines, and the land. Thus we look to put an end for ever to the wage-system, to sweep away all distinctions of class, and eventually to establish the world cooperative commonwealth. Our tactics are as clear as our goals. We find ourselves opposed by the left-wing who believe that it was useless to advocate socialism. Their method is to try to win working-class support by promising and agitating for reforms. The workers, they claim, do not want socialism, but “something now.” Let us promise them what they want and thus get a Labour Party government. The numerous benefits it will bestow on the workers will then win their support for the introduction of socialism. This theory is based on a series of misconceptions. The work, however, of building a Labour Party thrusts socialism into the background. It also assumed that a Labour government could run capitalism to remove the grave problems which have been, and are being, produced by capitalism. It assumes that unemployment, poverty and the like, are the outcome, not of the system, but of the stupidity, malevolence or incompetence, of politicians. It overlooked the very important lesson that the party which happens to be in office gets blamed by working-class electors for the evil effects of the capitalist system on themselves. The Socialist Party has been the only organisation which declined to abandon socialism in order to build up the Labour Party, and the only organisation which will not be implicated in the disgust and disillusion which will follow the inevitable failure of Labour governments. The day that the workers are ready to vote solidly for socialism the game is up. It only remains, therefore, for the workers to look beneath the surface of all their troubles to find that the remedy for each and every one of them is socialism. Armed with the necessary knowledge, we, workers, are all-powerful and the capitalists know it, and that is why their paid hirelings disseminate so much confusion on the subject.

Although we cannot specify in advance a utopian blueprint lets try and describe free access socialism. Suppose that the new social system was to start tomorrow, we are not proposing just the abolition of money. In fact, the abolition of money alone, would solve no problems and undoubtedly create many difficulties. But what we propose is, that the whole system of money and exchange, buying and selling, profit-making and wage-earning be entirely abolished and that instead, the community as a whole should organise and administer the productions of goods for use only, and the free distribution of these goods to all members of the community according to each person’s needs. Simply put, in socialism there would be no barter economy or monetary system. It would be an economy based on need. Therefore, a consumer would have a need, and there would be a communication system set in place that relays that need to the producer. The producer creates the product, and then send the product back to the consumer, and the need would be satisfied. For socialism to be established the productive potential of society must have been developed to the point where, generally speaking, we can produce enough for all. This is not now a problem as we have long since reached this point. Socialism does presuppose that productive resources (materials, instruments of production, sources of energy) and technological knowledge are sufficient to allow the population of the world to produce enough food, clothing, shelter and other useful things, to satisfy all their material needs. The new social system must be world-wide. It must be a World Commonwealth. The world must be regarded as one country and humanity as one people.

We are not so naive as to imagine that the changeover from world capitalism to world socialism will occur over a single weekend. The changeover can be envisaged as taking place over a relatively short period of time of, say, five years (we don't know.) Yet even before the full establishment of socialism people will have started to do what is needed to begin creating the new world. Local life will soon become largely self-administering and local plans will be devised to make the best alternative uses of buildings that no longer served their original purposes, such as banks, ammunitions factories, and stately homes. Communities able to grow their own food can very quickly become self-sufficient: food surpluses distributed elsewhere to areas of need without any requirement to pass through the asphyxiating intermediary of the market although later it will not be a question of communities passing on their surpluses to one another (most, if left to themselves, wouldn't have any surplus); it is a question of them being interlinked in a single network of production which in the end embraces the whole world. Wider co-ordination will ensue. It is as well to be aware to what extent local communities are interconnected and interdependent and that this places severe limits on what needs could be met locally. The fact is that people in small communities aren't able to produce all they need or anything like it. The final stage of the production of a range of goods for everyday use could be done locally--food, clothes, shoes, furniture--as well as repairs but neither (most of) the raw materials nor (in most cases) any of the metals to make the tools and machines used in this final stage could be produced locally. The community will ascertain what are the requirements of the people - anything and everything that the people desire. Food, clothing, housing, transport, sanitation — these come first; all effort will be to supply those first; everyone will feel it a duty to take some part in supplying these. Then will follow the adornments and amusements. There will be a real sense of working together for a common goal - a true community. If you read people’s reminiscences of the Second World War or the Depression of the Thirties, you will find time and again the refrain, “Times were hard, but everybody pulled together.” It matters not how accurate these memories are; what is crucial is the way that cooperation and solidarity are seen as positive values, to be cherished and kept in the memory.

"It's a nice idea but it will never happen" is one of the most common responses to the suggestion that it is in our interests to work towards building a socialist society. The assumption is that socialism will rely upon everybody being altruistic, sacrificing their own interests for those of others. In fact, socialism doesn’t require people to be any more altruistic than they are today. We will still be concerned primarily with ourselves, with satisfying our needs, our need to be well considered by others as well as our material and sexual needs. It is enlightened self-interest that will work for the majority. The coming of socialism will not require great changes in the way we behave, essentially only the accentuation of some of the behaviours which people exhibit today (friendliness, helpfulness, co-operation) at the expense of others which capitalism encourages (acquisitiveness, competition)

Given the control of human affairs that a socialist system would bring, people in socialism would be able to take charge of their destiny. What is undeniable is that we are a species with great talents. In science, technology, in art, crafts, and design we can call upon a wide range of great skills. The point now is to release these for the benefit of humanity and a new era for humanity will have begun. Production for profit will have been confined to a barely-understandable and barbaric past.